Club Management Issue

"ET" wrote in message
...
Whether we think the rules make sense, or whether we like them, is
irrelevant.

THAT kind of thinking will lead to ANY opinion you have, or I have, of any
law or regulation being irrelevant.

You need to stay in context. My point is that, for the purpose of
understanding how the rules are interpreted and enforced (which is the point
here), what you think of the rules makes no difference.

Don't like the rules? Sure, it makes sense to work to change them. But
until you DO change them, you still need to understand how they are
currently interpreted and enforced. You ignore them at your own peril, and
no amount of opinionating regarding the rules will save you.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

The "commonality of purpose" criteria is the most common way for pilots to
be violated by the FAA.

Agreed. Mark should just decide he's going to go out and
help get the plane back. He can hold screwdrivers, rent a
car or walk to go get parts, read the repair manual, be an
extra set of eyes and hands to do whatever needs to be done
to help. Then his purpose is the same as the passengers,
and they can share.

As far as the legitimacy of the regulation goes, I personally have no
problem with it.

I do. We draw similar lines with vehicles. I can't run a
taxi service or drive 18 wheelers for delivery of product.
I can run to the store to get a part for a friend. Similar
rules could (and should) be set that allow the use of a
plane to be more like the use of a car. We can have such
rules without risking public safety.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
I do. We draw similar lines with vehicles. I can't run a
taxi service or drive 18 wheelers for delivery of product.
I can run to the store to get a part for a friend. Similar
rules could (and should) be set that allow the use of a
plane to be more like the use of a car. We can have such
rules without risking public safety.

IMHO, the way the rules work for motor vehicles is a good argument for
having the rules interpreted the way the FAA is doing now. There are plenty
of people who stretch the concept of what's commercial and what's not,
engaging in commercial operations in motor vehicles without a proper
license. This is exactly the kind of stretching that would happen in
aviation if the FAA didn't take such a hard-nosed stance.

I'd love to think that pilots are a unique group and above that sort of
thing, but history says otherwise. Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take the
whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not give
the inch.

As far as the claim that "rules could be set that allow the use of a plane
to be more like the use of a car", you won't get anywhere convincing me
that's true. It's my opinion that motor vehicles ought to be regulated MUCH
more strictly, and more like aviation is now. Especially with respect to
driver certification and the kind of training drivers are required to have
for various kinds of driving, as well as actually enforcing the laws we
already have and which drivers flagrantly ignore.

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to the
store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge your friend
for that service. So, the example you're providing doesn't appear to me to
offer any difference than what the situation is in aviation.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

some snippage

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to
the store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge
your friend for that service. So, the example you're providing
doesn't appear to me to offer any difference than what the situation
is in aviation.

Pete


Yes, but there is nothing wrong with your friend paying for your gas
used, absolutley nothing (not saying that's the way the regs read, but
that they SHOULD read that way). That's were the aviation laws need to
be modified. I agree if you start making interpretations about maint
reserves, etc. then you have a problem since it would be very easy to
manipulate the numbers without some definate standard. But I should be
able to use my time and my plane to help and/or transport my friend
without actually having to take out my own wallet at the gas pump.

Heck, by strict interpretation of some of these "common law" decisions
Angel Flight should have to be conducted under 135 too. If I get a "good
feeling" or possibly "enhanced standing in the eyes of my fellow pilots"
by flying an Angel Flight, then that's compensation and I better have
complied with 135 right????? For that matter, arent I able to deduct the
costs of the flight on my taxes?? there's compensation too... where does
it stop?

--
ET
(from the perspective of a future Student Pilot)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Aviation has just as many scofflaws and
pretenders as exist in the general population, and those folks will take the
whole mile, given the inch. The FAA is well within their rights to not give
the inch.

We just disagree. There is no reason I can see to prevent
"compensation" in the form of logging time and reimbursement
of legitimate expenses. I would simply prohibit "holding
out" and "profit" to ensure that commercial activities were
not being engaged in.

As far as the claim that "rules could be set that allow the use of a plane
to be more like the use of a car", you won't get anywhere convincing me
that's true. It's my opinion that motor vehicles ought to be regulated MUCH
more strictly, and more like aviation is now. Especially with respect to
driver certification and the kind of training drivers are required to have
for various kinds of driving, as well as actually enforcing the laws we
already have and which drivers flagrantly ignore.

I've got no comment on changing automotive licensing, but I
don't see the advantage of prohibiting activities in an
airplane that are legal in a car.

Finally, with respect to your example, note that while you can run to the
store to get a part for a friend, you are not allowed to charge your friend
for that service.

But he can legally reimburse you 100%.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

John T wrote:

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.

They can offer all they want. They just can't *charge* for it.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message


They can offer all they want. They just can't *charge* for it.


Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot accept an offer of payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

Realizing we're talking about the FAA, that still doesn't pass the "common
sense" rule. I see this as no different than offering to pay a friend
the cost (or, in this case, half the cost) of driving me to the plane
instead of flying.

The FAA is drawing a distinction between private pilots and pilots for hire,
but accepting pro rata share of flight costs to fly a fellow pilot to his
stranded plane does not seem to me to be a commercial exercise in and of
itself.

However, I remain open to the idea that my interpretation of the reg is
incorrect. Can you point me to another interpretation or legal ruling that
demonstrates that Mark cannot accept even pro rata payment for the outbound
leg of this flight?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:

Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot accept an offer of payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

That's correct. He has to be going there anyway.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot iaccept an offer of
payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

Absent some other clear explanation, the presence of such a dead-head leg on
the return trip would raise a significant suspicion in my mind that the
outbound trip did not have a commonality of purpose.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

John T wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net

No "commonality of purpose". Mark was not goint to fly to the
destination until the mechanic told him that there was a plane
stranded there.


OK, let me change the scenario slightly. Let's say Mark and I are airport
neighbors and I need a ride to Little Airport to pick up my plane that's in
for service. You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that airport?

In the scenario posed by the OP, let's assume for the moment that Mark
didn't charge anything for the flight and did it out of neighborly concern.
Is he still in violation of Part 91?

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe that even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.


The mechanic was also on the trip, and was getting paid for his time.
Makes it a part 135 operation as far as the FAA is concerned, even if
"Mark" didn't receive a dime.



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.